Research
President Obama’s Air Pollution
Record
SAM BATKINS | SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
Recent air pollution data and regulatory actions by the Obama Administration demonstrate
that Americans are paying more for less. Between 2005 to 2009, the nation experienced a
decline of 11,116 days of moderate to hazardous air pollution (across all jurisdictions). During
the Obama Administration, this decline slowed to 3,897 fewer days of moderate to hazardous
pollution, despite the economic recession and billions of dollars more in regulatory costs.
From 2009 to present, EPA regulations, primarily to reduce air emissions, have added more
than $295 billion in net present value costs, while air pollution’s decline is not nearly as
pronounced as in the past. That’s roughly $75 million spent for each day of cleaner air.
Methodology
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracks air quality of a variety of pollutants,
including the six criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA’s categorization of
days with either “good” to “hazardous” air pollution includes concentrations of ground-level
ozone and fine particulate matter. The American Action Forum (AAF) gathered air pollution
data from 2005 to 2014, including days that EPA labeled air pollution moderate, unhealthy for
sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous for any jurisdiction in the United
States (defined as “unclean air”). AAF also collected data on the major air quality regulations
from EPA during this time. Then, AAF compared the cost of reducing moderate to hazardous
air pollution days from 2005 to 2014. Complete data on 2015 will be made available by early
next year.
Findings
AMERICANACTIONFORUM.ORG
Image not found or type unknown
Not surprisingly, air quality has increased as the number of unclean air days has steadily
declined; the number of “good” days increased from 196 days per jurisdiction to more than
251, a 28 percent increase during just one decade. This finding isn’t startling because EPA
strictly regulates the amount of particulate matter and ground-level ozone in the U.S. The
number of moderately bad days declined by more than 20 percent, from an average of 84 days
per jurisdiction to less than 67. These “moderate” days are not necessarily unhealthy, as EPA
cautions that “air quality is acceptable,” but “a very small number of people who are
unusually sensitive” might have problems with the air.
Extreme, China-like days of air pollution are mostly a relic of decades past. The average
jurisdiction saw just 1.4 “unhealthy” days in 2005 and now that figure has dropped to 0.77, a
decline of almost 50 percent, but unhealthy days were already rare. For “very unhealthy
days,” which EPA describes as “health warnings of emergency conditions,” the nation has not
improved. In 2005, there were 46 “very unhealthy” days in the entire U.S. (not just for the
average jurisdiction); in 2014, there were also 46 “very unhealthy days.” The conditions that
contribute to these health emergencies revolve largely around local factors. For example, only
four jurisdictions (located in Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico) experienced more
than one “very unhealthy” day in 2014. Nevertheless, despite billions of dollars in
investments, there has been no improvement in these health emergency events.
Diminishing Returns for Obama Administration
During the last decade, Americans are breathing healthier air, but are the current investments
as beneficial as previous actions? The graph below tracks the number of unclean air days per
jurisdiction and the rate of change. From 2005 to 2009, the rate of unhealthy days per
jurisdiction declined 20.7 percent. Compare this to the recent decline during the Obama
Administration: 9.2 percent. The black line below is a linear trendline.
AMERICANACTIONFORUM.ORG
Image not found or type unknown
The air pollution investments, despite growing more expensive, are yielding fewer returns.
Between 2005 to 2009, Americans enjoyed a total of 11,166 fewer days of unclean air.
However, during the Obama Administration, there were only 3,897 fewer days of unclean air.
In 2005, the average jurisdiction could expect roughly 100 unclean air quality days (moderate
to hazardous). By 2009, that figure dropped to 78 unclean days, a decline of more than 20
percent. During the Obama Administration, by contrast, the decline has been just 9.2 percent.
The growth in U.S. air quality has slowed and Americans are paying more for these reduced
gains. In other words, there are diminishing returns for increased investments, often in the
billions of dollars, for reducing the six criteria pollutants. According to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, EPA’s office of Air and Radiation finalized 14
“economically significant” regulations from 2005 to 2009. During the Obama Administration,
EPA has finalized 22 economically significant measures. Despite this steep increase, air quality
gains have actually slowed.
To monetize these investments, AAF looked at five of the most significant air quality
regulations of the last decade by their effective date:
2006 Particulate Matter Rule: $5.4 billion in annual cost;
2011 Heavy-Duty Truck Efficiency Rule: $600 million in annual cost;
2012 Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS): $9.6 billion in annual cost;
2013 Particulate Matter Rule: $350 million in annual cost; and
2014 Tier 3 Fuel Sulfur Rule: $1.5 billion in annual cost.
Combined, these measures have imposed $17.4 billion in annual costs to achieve air pollution
goals. However, Obama Administration regulators have imposed $12 billion of this figure or
69 percent. Yet, the rate of air pollution decline continues to stagnate. This list of five major air
regulations is hardly exhaustive. Indeed, in EPA’s recent ozone proposal the agency listed
roughly a dozen major air regulations that have contributed to lower particulate matter and
ground-level ozone. However, there is little doubt that regulatory activity at EPA has increased
AMERICANACTIONFORUM.ORG
substantially and Americans are paying more to achieve only slight improvements in air
quality.
Some may argue that it is too soon to judge the effectiveness of these rules, but it is important
to note how quickly they can take effect. Although EPA’s cost-benefit analyses often examine
the environmental impact decades later, affected entities generally adjust their practices even
before the rule is finalized. For instance, even in light of the Supreme Court decision
challenging MATS, experts agree companies have already largely implemented the regulation,
regardless of its ultimate legal standing. Rules of this magnitude should demonstrate some
noticeable additional benefits within a relatively short time.
One curious trend in the Obama Administration’s air pollution record is particulate matter.
According to some in the administration, there is no safe amount for human inhalation,
although this is hotly debated. With virtually every EPA air measure, the “co-benefits” result
from reducing fine particulate matter or PM 2.5. For example, in EPA’s MATS rule, PM 2.5 was
responsible for 99 percent of the benefits. In addition, for the proposed “Clean Power Plan,”
which is supposed to directly regulate greenhouse gases, PM 2.5 “co-benefits” reductions
contributed $24 billion to $56 billion in ancillary benefits or roughly 56 percent of all benefits.
Yet, with the other criteria pollutants continuing to fall, PM 2.5 is increasingly the number one
air pollutant. The graph below displays this trend.
Image not found or type unknown
In 2005, PM 2.5 was the main pollutant 110 days annually for the average jurisdiction. By
2014, that figure rose 29 percent, to 142.5 days. As a result, this pollutant continues to be an
attractive target for regulators looking to find potential benefits. Generally, if a regulation
results in burning less fossil fuel, there will be resulting PM 2.5 reductions. The rise of
particulate matter as the dominant source of air pollution continues to give regulators an
attractive option for boosting benefits.
However, the current concentration of PM 2.5 is technically already legal, generally meeting
EPA guidelines. The following chart displays the weighted average particulate matter
AMERICANACTIONFORUM.ORG
concentrations in the U.S.
Image not found or type unknown
Particulate matter is declining, as it should do under EPA regulations. Generally, all
jurisdictions meet EPA’s guidelines because the law requires it. Despite this legally “clean air,”
the number of days when PM 2.5 is the main pollutant continues to increase. It’s no surprise
regulators routinely use this pollutant to justify unrelated regulatory measures.
Conclusion
Americans are paying more than $17.4 billion annually for air pollution benefits, with at least
$12 billion from this administration alone. However, the benefits are becoming increasingly
more expensive under the Obama Administration. Gains in air quality are slowing, yet the
pace of regulation continues to accelerate. With a major rule pending on ozone and the
implementation of the Clean Power Plan, Americans can expect to pay more for the few
remaining air quality benefits.
AMERICANACTIONFORUM.ORG